Fighting 'Solar Farm' Installation

walhondingMF · May 4, 2023

bvanek said:
When you have a divided and non-functioning Congress that puts the party and their donors ahead of the people, then you need a "slap in the face" kind of personality in the executive branch that has no ties to donors or lobbyists.

I couldn't find a way to agree more with this statement!!! I doubt that we will agree on the person posted but the concept of an outsider is one I support strongly...

kenmbz · May 4, 2023

We still have most of the country trying to earn better.
Don't always believe the news.
Remember that all the major news outlets are owned by a few people in the US.

Rules like this has made propaganda so much easier, and the net has changed news so much that everything is like the old rag newspapers now.

2. In the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (1996 Act), Congress directed the Commission to amend its rules to increase the national audience reach cap from 25 percent to 35 percent and eliminate the restriction on owning more than 12 broadcast television stations nationwide.Jan 26, 2018

kenmbz · May 4, 2023

Hay Dude said:
Sure they do. Banks across the country have millions of portfolio loans in house.

Most banks only hold commercial mortgages and "service" or originate home loans.

As of 2023, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac support around 70 percent of the mortgage market, according to the National Association of Realtors. That means the majority of conventional loans, those offered by private lenders, end up being backed or purchased by one of the two entities.

Most banks dump the loans to the government within days of closing.
This is why most banks don't care about cash anymore since they only have to cover a fraction of the loans they used to.
This puts all the risky loans to the government and why the last crash could happen. My brother used to work at bundling loans for sale, it's quite the business when your buyer will buy anything you try to sell them.

walhondingMF · May 4, 2023

Elviscaretaker said:
There were many things done in the earlier part of the 20th century that also shouldn't have been done. But as far as the tax credit lifting more children out of poverty, how many were put into it by the reaction to covid? I'd bet more that the resolution has lifted out of it. I don't feel like digging on that but from what I've read in the past, more kids were put into poverty. While I think it's our duty as a country to encourage families to have more kids, it's also the parents duty to be smart about having them and the government should not be giving the credit to those not in need of it. Very few in the US are in actual poverty, not with all the resources offered as hand outs. Poor and poverty are not the same thing.

I truly respect your opinion on this, but I have to disagree with it putting them in poverty. I work in a school district where only 29% of our students are considered not under the poverty line. Our country has the highest childhood homelessness rate in the state. If it weren't for the 100% free breakfast and lunch program, a lot of them wouldn't get more than 1 meal. All of them were there long before Covid. It's the "good" parents that are having less kids. I cannot speak on the tax credits direct impact on all of my students, but that would require them having "good" parents. The child doesn't get to chose the parent...
Why the new NG plant building us new schools is a God send for our kids and any new energy facility, factory, etc a community can get that improves the community would be the same...

5030 · May 4, 2023

Township just west of us voted 4-1 against solar farms on ag ground.

walhondingMF · May 4, 2023

Hay Dude said:
It’s just not because comparing a singular pipeline project the entire solar power industry makes ZERO sense.

I'm not comparing a singular pipeline. That's just the one in the news. That pipeline represents an industry, just as all the solar represents an industry.

Hay Dude said:
But we DO need to rehash that! We never address it. Some guy did. He lowered corporation taxes and other incentives to bring critical industry back. It was beginning to work. He also brought us energy independence, lowering energy prices. That’s now gone, too.

Do you truly believe that money those companies were "saving" in taxes was being reinvested in the companies? There was ZERO regulation or requirement for how the savings was supposed to be spent. American manufacturing left when trickle down started and large corporations could do whatever they wanted with their money. They started cutting corners, putting their money off shore and shipped manufacturing over seas because they didn't want to pay a decent wage to their workers anymore. The death of middle america. All the rich people tried to figure out is how to buy another helicopter. I am fine with lowering corporate tax rates as long as they are REQUIRED to reinvest it, like in the 50s. It was simply an attempt to make it look like giving himself and his rich peers more money.

walhondingMF · May 4, 2023

edgarrian said:
The point is. We are so close to climate doomsday right..... Its always dire that we make change. Yet im telling you the volcanic eruptions should send us over the edge. They never do but you would have me believe that we are on the verge of something terrible. Thats why that narrative is garbage. Its been said since the 60s.

Here are facts. It use to be knowingly unwise to build by water. It was actually discouraged years ago. Obviously that has changed. Hell we have towns and cities sitting below sea level. So any storm wrecks havoc on these places and causes billions in damage. EVs won't change that ever.. Solar panels won't change that. What solar panels will do is cause more flooding damage. As solar companies are rightfully getting sued b/c of damage to field tile. There are several lawsuits for this as there should be. They should be good stewards of the land but they fail on this front. What else are they failing at. Turbine companies do the same thing. The grid is not ready for all this nonsense. Hell the other day I had to drive an EV. It cost 37 dollars to charge for a measly 100 miles. That's fact and its garbage.

I'm not telling you its doomsday. Assuming the words of a few represent all is not the way to go.

If they are not being good stewards of the land, that's because they are a bad company. It doesn't have anything to do with the panels or the turbines. Some coal and some Oil and Gas companies can be (and have been) bad stewards as well. They failed at preventing leaks and spills. They didn't prevent mining accidents.

I personally, have not made any of my statements based on wanting to reduce CO2 levels. I personally believe, along with some models, that our hard switch to NG from coal may have done enough to lower America's contribution to greenhouse gas levels. But having a variety of energy options, encouraging new industry, lowering energy dependence are all good reasons.

An EV isn't a good option for you, and not for many people. It isn't for me. But it is for a lot of people, especially fleet companies. I do disagree with how the EV industry has been marketed in the past and to who it has been marketed too. That is changing.

walhondingMF · May 4, 2023

KilroyJC said:
And the only way to prevent the doomsday is to give more money to the government and become Communists, because that will make the weather gooder…

Letting the rich people keep more of it because we "trust" them to do the right thing for the average american only allows them to financially take control of the government, like so many have. That makes us Fascist. Hasn't everyone on here agreed on that flaw in the system.

Hay Dude said:
“Equity” and “Entitlement” are a road to misery. And this country just took the off ramp onto the superhighway of equity and entitlement.

Our country has moved far from equity. But entitlement, absolutely. If you are extremely wealthy, you are entitled to keep more of than everyone that is "below" you. If you're rich, you're entitled to pay lower tax rates than everyone "below" you. If you're rich, you're entitled to make sure that the "free market" isn't so free so you don't have competition. If you're rich, you're entitled to influence politics, legislation and the news.

kenmbz · May 4, 2023

When was the last time in the US that the gov went after a monopoly?
How does corporate consolidation help workers that become redundant.
How do lobbies and PACs affect elections.
The oil and solar companies have large lobbies, so the states have to deal with any limits/controls on their own.

KilroyJC · May 4, 2023

walhondingMF said:
Letting the rich people keep more of it because we "trust" them to do the right thing for the average american only allows them to financially take control of the government, like so many have. That makes us Fascist. Hasn't everyone on here agreed on that flaw in the system.

Our country has moved far from equity. But entitlement, absolutely. If you are extremely wealthy, you are entitled to keep more of than everyone that is "below" you. If you're rich, you're entitled to pay lower tax rates than everyone "below" you. If you're rich, you're entitled to make sure that the "free market" isn't so free so you don't have competition. If you're rich, you're entitled to influence politics, legislation and the news.

I didn’t say “letting the rich people keep money” —- I said letting EVERYONE KEEP THEIR MONEY.

going back several layers of this convo, what pisses me off more about the whole “Green Energy” thingy is that the people who push it most are the ones who follow it least.

DiCaprio’s yacht has a bigger carbon footprint in one week than my entire household - including residence, woodlot, vehicles and machinery) does in a year.

When the screechie preachy ones start living like they demand the rest of us do (Lead By Example) maybe I will be more attentive.

I think I will go outside and burn a tire to vent my frustration now…

KilroyJC · May 4, 2023

kenmbz said:
When was the last time in the US that the gov went after a monopoly?
How does corporate consolidation help workers that become redundant.
How do lobbies and PACs affect elections.
The oil and solar companies have large lobbies, so the states have to deal with any limits/controls on their own.

Either AT&T or MicroSoft, forget which was last…

MossRoad · May 4, 2023

On a somewhat related energy sector note.

There's a large ethanol plant here in town. It was built around 1985, and ran until around 2012. It was closed down for two years and headed to the scrapper when a company came in, bought it, invested $30M into it around 2014, and just yesterday it was announced another company just bought it and plans to spend $230M in upgrades and expansion.

While I'm not a fan of ethanol, it's a huge investment, has a great location, ample farms to supply it, great water source, rail lines, electric, etc. The also produce industrial gasses from the process, as well as animal feed. The expansion is supposed to increase those, as well as fertilizers and natural gas. There's a greenhouse next to it that is working on a process to use some of the CO2 from the ethanol plant to increase productivity. That greenhouse is expanding, and another much larger one is slated to start construction soon right next door.

It's interesting to see how waste that was once just discarded has now become valuable, and companies are now squeezing everything they can out of their processes to lessen costs and increase profits.

Verbio purchases South Bend ethanol plant, plans $230 million upgrade

The German company plans to ask the city for a tax abatement to support its expansion proposal.

www.wndu.com

walhondingMF · May 4, 2023

KilroyJC said:
I didn’t say “letting the rich people keep money” —- I said letting EVERYONE KEEP THEIR MONEY.

going back several layers of this convo, what pisses me off more about the whole “Green Energy” thingy is that the people who push it most are the ones who follow it least.

DiCaprio’s yacht has a bigger carbon footprint in one week than my entire household - including residence, woodlot, vehicles and machinery) does in a year.

When the screechie preachy one’s start living like they demand the rest of us do (Lead By Example) maybe I will be more attentive.

I think I will go outside and burn a tire to vent my frustration now…

With you here. It actually makes it harder for those who are legitimate, serious and realistic about the situation (like me).

Now that I remember, a few years ago, Warren Buffet started a program where he personally challenged everyone he could find that was worth at minimum 1 billion dollars to find something to give at least half of it away too. What a great idea. But even Buffet said it was silly that he had to encourage extremely wealthy people to do something positive with the outrageous amounts of money they had, usually through working the system and finding ways to not pay taxes. Depending on the "kindness" of the super wealthy to make america better just doesn't work. I think they should have to give more of it up. We can debate what it should be spent on but it could lower the average American's taxes drastically and they would never see the difference. Imagine what good could be done with a fraction of a percent of the taxes Jeff Bezos DOESN'T pay. Instead he tried to pay a German village to tear down their 200 year old stone bridge just so he could get his newest yacht through.

KilroyJC · May 4, 2023

walhondingMF said:
With you here. It actually makes it harder for those who are legitimate, serious and realistic about the situation (like me).

Now that I remember, a few years ago, Warren Buffet started a program where he personally challenged everyone he could find that was worth at minimum 1 billion dollars to find something to give at least half of it away too. What a great idea. But even Buffet said it was silly that he had to encourage extremely wealthy people to do something positive with the outrageous amounts of money they had, usually through working the system and finding ways to not pay taxes. Depending on the "kindness" of the super wealthy to make america better just doesn't work. I think they should have to give more of it up. We can debate what it should be spent on but it could lower the average American's taxes drastically and they would never see the difference. Imagine what good could be done with a fraction of a percent of the taxes Jeff Bezos DOESN'T pay. Instead he tried to pay a German village to tear down their 200 year old stone bridge just so he could get his newest yacht through.

Warren Buffet also says that he doesnt pay enough in taxes, but there is this checkbox on everybody’s return for “Voluntary Additional Payment.”

my family’s net worth isn’t a blip on one day’s interest that he makes.

Hey Warren - nothing is stopping you from writing a big Ol’ check to Uncle Sam!

Or to me, for that matter…

My opinion of Bezos would get me inTBN Timeout, suffice to say that “disappointed” barely scratches the surface.

KilroyJC · May 4, 2023

walhondingMF said:
With you here. It actually makes it harder for those who are legitimate, serious and realistic about the situation (like me).

Now that I remember, a few years ago, Warren Buffet started a program where he personally challenged everyone he could find that was worth at minimum 1 billion dollars to find something to give at least half of it away too. What a great idea. But even Buffet said it was silly that he had to encourage extremely wealthy people to do something positive with the outrageous amounts of money they had, usually through working the system and finding ways to not pay taxes. Depending on the "kindness" of the super wealthy to make america better just doesn't work. I think they should have to give more of it up. We can debate what it should be spent on but it could lower the average American's taxes drastically and they would never see the difference. Imagine what good could be done with a fraction of a percent of the taxes Jeff Bezos DOESN'T pay. Instead he tried to pay a German village to tear down their 200 year old stone bridge just so he could get his newest yacht through.

I don’t think they should “have to give it up”, but they should not be shielded from mockery and scorn regarding their hypocrisy.

MossRoad · May 4, 2023

I never understood the appeal of owning a super yacht. Incredible outlay of cash for a few weeks of vacation. If I were super wealthy, I'd rent.

When I was a kid, a friend of mine's father owned a 100' yacht on lake Michigan. They traded it in on a 110' yacht a few years later. While that pales in comparison to a super yacht, it was still longer than our house.

MossRoad · May 4, 2023

walhondingMF said:
With you here. It actually makes it harder for those who are legitimate, serious and realistic about the situation (like me).

Now that I remember, a few years ago, Warren Buffet started a program where he personally challenged everyone he could find that was worth at minimum 1 billion dollars to find something to give at least half of it away too. What a great idea. But even Buffet said it was silly that he had to encourage extremely wealthy people to do something positive with the outrageous amounts of money they had, usually through working the system and finding ways to not pay taxes. Depending on the "kindness" of the super wealthy to make america better just doesn't work. I think they should have to give more of it up. We can debate what it should be spent on but it could lower the average American's taxes drastically and they would never see the difference. Imagine what good could be done with a fraction of a percent of the taxes Jeff Bezos DOESN'T pay. Instead he tried to pay a German village to tear down their 200 year old stone bridge just so he could get his newest yacht through.

Flat tax with no upper limit would resolve that pretty quick.

walhondingMF · May 4, 2023

KilroyJC said:
Warren Buffet also says that he doesnt pay enough in taxes, but there is this checkbox on everybody’s return for “Voluntary Additional Payment.”

my family’s net worth isn’t a blip on one day’s interest that he makes.

Hey Warren - nothing is stopping you from writing a big Ol’ check to Uncle Sam!

lot me, for that matter…

My opinion of Bezos would get me inTBN Timeout, suffice to say that “disappointed” barely scratches the surface.

I see nothing in this post that I disagree with, especially on the Bezos stuff lol.

OzarkChris · May 4, 2023

mcallen said:
Nothing demonstrates solar projects having any negative impact on adjecent property values. If anything is shows the community is smart enough to understand basic science and research done by their own, that FF's are killing the planet. However, it is wise find our if the landowner is going to do only solar, meaning panels mounted at a minimum height or the truly profitable and worthwhile method of tall mounting. The latter allows for continued use of the ground below for farming thus maintaining the ecological benefits of growing crops, available Ag tax credits, plus domestic production. No one loses!

I really hate to take this thread this way, but my milk crate is calling me again!

Making statements that are more political than "science" based is really not a good reality. I agree that in this day and age many so called scientists support the idea that fossil fuels are "killing" the planet. However, let's look at where this so called science-based data is primarily coming from. First, most of this "data" is coming from funding linked to green energy advocates and industries in the same way the opposite data is primarily coming from FF advocates and industries. The real question has to be, Why is the science being funded on one side so much better (more appropriate or sound) than the data coming from the other side?

I see/read research that "only green energy" can save us from extinction because it doesn't produce any co2 or methane, etc. Then you see research that shows that the data they are looking at is not significant e.g., atmosphere currently has less than .007% of these items in it. This administration, right, wrong or indifferent, has sided with the "alarmists" that have been spouting doomsday dribble since long before I was born (~65 years ago). Unfortunately, this has had an awful impact on "the American way of life" with higher taxes, higher inflation and higher costs for just about everything. Yet, this administration has the gall to say that we just have to deal with it, while "they" line their respective pockets with cash from the green energy advocates, and possibly from our enemies.

As I've mentioned many times before, here and other places, it appears that this "Green energy" phenomenon is only valid if it includes dysfunctional energy sources. Be it solar or wind, neither of which produces energy during times of darkness or lack of wind respectively. The counter arguments are even worse. "Battery technology has come a long way", okay, but it still isn't plausible yet, correct? "We are not looking at pollution from 3rd world countries (e.g., China) that supply green energy components because they are providing such a valuable service". So this pollution doesn't cause "greenhouse gasses" that contribute to our existential destruction, correct? "We MUST stop relying on fossil fuels or face impending doom!". But we will pay our enemies to have them drill, pump and ship these same (or dirtier) fossil fuels to us, correct? "Solar and Wind are the best green energy-related technologies that are available". So, what's wrong with Nuclear? Its clean, long lasting, works at night and during days with no/little wind. The containment and disposal of "spent rods" is not a greater threat to the environment than the components in solar or the fiberglass in the propellers of wind systems - and it could be argued that spent rod disposal is a lesser threat environmentally. Most Nuclear reactors have their rods replaced out every 6 years (on an 18 - 36 month rotation schedule) and it has been stated that there exists a "Billion year" supply of the elements necessary to fuel those breeder reactors. Six years sounds like a lot of waste, doesn't it? Well, current LiFo batter technologies are good for 3-5 years, then you have to dispose of all those nasty chemicals (and mine/process more), and the mining & processing of LiFo is extremely dirty compared to Nuclear elements.

What about Hydro? There have been Hydroelectric plants producing energy for almost as long as there has been commercially available electricity. What, because some broke dick duck doesn't like rushing water or fish ladders are causing undue stress on fish this is a bad technology? Or, it it just these technologies don't fit the current "narrative"? E.g., there isn't enough money to line this administration's pockets.

I could go on and on, but I'll step off my milk crate and put it away until it is once again needed!